1 / 36

Mapping and Ranking: New higher education transparency tools

N. Mapping and Ranking: New higher education transparency tools. Don F. Westerheijden, CHEPS, University of Twente, the Netherlands. Diversity in Higher Education Systems. Diversity and differentiation Institutional and programme diversity Horizontal and vertical diversity.

conan
Télécharger la présentation

Mapping and Ranking: New higher education transparency tools

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. N Mapping and Ranking: New higher education transparency tools Don F. Westerheijden, CHEPS, University of Twente, the Netherlands

  2. Diversity in Higher Education Systems • Diversity and differentiation • Institutional and programme diversity • Horizontal and vertical diversity

  3. Diversity in Higher Education Systems • Offers better access to a wider variety of students • Provides more social mobility through multiple modes of entry and forms of transfer • Better meets the diverse needs of the labor market • Is a condition for regional specialisation • Serves the political needs of larger number of interest groups (social stability) • Increases the effectiveness of higher education institutions (institutional specialisation) • Offers opportunities for experimentation

  4. The rise of global rankings • Academic Ranking of World Class Universities (ARWU) Shanghai Jiaotong University, since 2003 • Times Higher Education Supplement World Rankings (THE) Times Higher Education, since 2004 • Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan Ranking (HEEACT), since 2007 • The Leiden Ranking (LR) Leiden University, since 2008

  5. Critique of existing rankings • Focus on ‘whole institutions’ (ignoring internal variance) • Concentrate on ‘traditional’ research productivity and impact • Focus on ‘comprehensive research universities’ • Aggregate performance into composite overall indicators • Use constructed ‘league table’ • Imply cultural and language biases • Imply bias against humanities and social sciences

  6. Designing an alternative:the EC Call for Tender (2009) • Development of concept and feasibility study • Global ranking (not only European) • Multi-dimensional - teaching and learning (incl. employability) - research - knowledge transfer - internationalisation (incl. mobility) - community outreach • Institutional and field-based (disciplines) • All types of higher education and research institutions • Multiple stakeholders

  7. Project partners

  8. Conceptual approach • One common ranking of all higher education and research institutions worldwide does not make sense for any group of stakeholders • Identify institutions that are comparable • Use the U-Map classification tool to find comparable ‘institutional profiles’ • Apply ranking instrument to sets of comparable institutions or fields

  9. Classifications in Higher Education • Instruments to group higher education institutions • And to characterize similarities and differences • Based on the actual conditions and activities of institutions

  10. Functions of Classifications • Transparency tool (various stakeholders) • Instrument for institutional strategies (mission, profile) • Base for governmental policies • Tool for research • Instrument for better ranking

  11. US Carnegie Classification • Initial objective (1973): improve higher education research • Over time several adaptations: 1976, 1994, 2000, 2006 • Labels and categories • Impacts on higher education system dynamics • Multi-dimensional approach (2006)

  12. European Classification: U-Map • Recently designed; three reports (2005, 2008, 2010); book (2009) • Interactive design process (stakeholders approach) • Basic design principles • Tested on validity, reliability, feasibility • 2010-2011: filling with real data is starting • See: www.u-map.eu

  13. Design Principles • U-Map is: • based on empirical data • based on a multi-actor and multi-dimensional perspective • non-hierarchical • relevant for all higher education institutions in Europe • descriptive, not prescriptive • based on reliable and verifiable data • parsimonious regarding extra data collection

  14. U-Map dimensions • Teaching and learning profile • Student profile • Research involvement • Knowledge exchange • International orientation • Regional engagement

  15. Institutional Profiles

  16. Institutional Profiles • Sets of ‘scores’ on the dimensions and indicators • Actual institutional activities, not performance • Full or partial institutional profiles • Information for external stakeholders • Instrument for strategic institutional management • Base for benchmarking, for inter-institutional cooperation, for effective communication and profiling

  17. U-Map website www.u-map.eu

  18. U-Multirank Design principles • Multidimensional • Multilevel • Comparing comparable institutional profiles • Stakeholder driven

  19. U-Multirank Dimensions • Teaching and learning • Research • Knowledge transfer • International orientation • Regional engagement

  20. U-Multirank Logic of institutional rankings descriptive institutional profiles on six dimensions performance profiles ofeach dimension, no aggregated institutional rankings to be called: Focused Institutional Rankings

  21. Pilots focused institutional rankings (150 HEIs) A B C D E F G C A B C D E F G C A B C D E F G C A D E G B F A B D E F G Subset of comparable institutions (A, B, C, D) Subset of comparable institutions (E, F, G, C) U-Map Profile Finder Stake-holders Main stakeholders: National policy makers Main stakeholders: HEIs/HEI managers Dimen-sions Teaching & learning Research Knowledge exchange Internationalisation Regional engagement

  22. U-Multirank Logic of field-based rankings descriptive institutional profiles on six dimensions performance profiles ofspecific field in institutions with comparable profiles to be called: Field-based Rankings

  23. Pilots field-based rankings Fields Business-studies Engineering subsetofcomparable HEIs (example: many MA, internatio-nallyoriented, researchintens.) subsetofcomparable HEIs (example: regionallyoriented, innovation-oriented, many BA) U-Map Profile Finder HEIs/HEI managers MA/PhD students Stake-holders Dimen-sions Teaching & learning A B C D E F G C A B C D E F G C Research A B C D E F G C Knowledge exchange A D E G B F Internationalisation A B D E F G Regional engagement

  24. U-Multirank • Multidimensional perspective of ‘institutional profiles’ • No overall ‘league tables’ • No composite institutional indicators • Two-level analysis (institutional and ‘field’) • Stakeholder-driven approach ‘multiple excellences’

  25. U-Multirank Identification and selection of relevant indicators per dimension Pre-test of instruments (10 institutions) Two-level pilot test (150 institutions worldwide) 2010-2011 Feasibility study

  26. U-Multirank Indicators Focused Institutional Graduation rate Relative employment rate Expenditure on teaching Time to degree interdisciplinarity Teaching and Learning • Field based • Student staff ratio • Relative employment rate • Graduation rate • Quality of staff • Interdisciplinarity • Student satisfaction scores

  27. U-Multirank Indicators Focused Institutional Research publ output Expenditure on research Citation impact Highly cited publications Research income from competitive sources Research • Field based • External research incme • Research publ output • Stud satisfaction: research orientation of programmes • Citation impact • Doctoral productivity

  28. U-Multirank Indicators Focused Institutional Size of TTO Incentives for knowledge exchange activities Joint research contracts with private sector Patents Third party funding Knowledge transfer • Field based • Ac staff with experience outside higher education • Joint research contracts with private sector • Patents • Spin-offs

  29. U-Multirank Indicators Focused Institutional Programmes in foreign language Internat academic staff Joint degree programmes Internat joint research publications Internat partnerships International orientation • Field based • % internat students • Mobile students • Stud sat.: opportunity to stay abroad • Internat academic staff • Internationalisation of programmes • Joint international projects

  30. U-Multirank Indicators Focused Institutional Income from regional/local sources Graduates working in the region Joint R&D with regional enterprises Stud internships in region Regional engagement • Field based • Stud internships in region • Joint R&D with regional enterprises • Regional intake of students • Graduates working in the region • Courses for sec ed students • Regional part in cont. ed

  31. U-Multirank Pretest Three instruments Institutional questionnaire Departmental questionnaire Student questionnaire

  32. U-Multirank Pretest Indicators dropped Pre-test results 9 institutions (three full version; six light version) Indicators amended

  33. U-Multirank Pilot Current phase 150 institutions, across all continents A few more US universities would be welcome! Focus on feasibility analyses Starting October 2010, ending Spring 2011

  34. F.A. van Vught, F. Kaiser a.o. (2010) U-Map, the European classification of higher education institutions, CHEPS, Enschede F.A. van Vught (ed.) (2009), Mapping the higher education landscape, Towards a European classification of higher education, Springer U-Map Publications

  35. U-Multirank CHERPA-Network (2009) U-Multirank Interim Progress Report I, Design Phase of the Project ‘Design and Testing the Feasibility of a Multi-dimensional Global University Ranking’ CHERPA-Network (2010) U-Multirank Interim Report II, Selection of instruments and institutions Publications

  36. Thank you for your attention! www.u-map.eu www.u-multirank.eu d.f.westerheijden@utwente.nl

More Related